|
roach -
Although I agree that the lack of defined parameters to this "common ground" concept would be very problematic to the degree of voiding the concept, it seems that even attempting the concept is a misguided endeavor.
My understanding of your viewpoint on the lack of definition is that without some sense of where each participant is begining, there is no way to justify an act of compromise to reach this thing called "common ground". In essence, there can be no common ground because such a thing presumes that there is a definitive "left" and a definitive "right" which can meet in a definitive "middle". And in that viewpoint, I agree.
But, in the realm of discussion, to even consider it a positive step to chip away at the "left" or "right" viewpoints for the singular goal of achieving a "balance", this common ground, is false. We are not here to set policy, we do not even want to achieve agreement. Agreement, by definition, is the exclusion of alternate viewpoints. Without alternate viewpoints, there is nothing to learn.
|